Would a Christianity Without Hell be More Appealing to Atheists?

I have noticed that many atheists and anti-Christians (as can be seen from the most active forums on Hubpages), have a huge distaste for Christianity primarily because of the contradiction between there being a loving God and an eternal hell-fire for those who do not do what he wants.

From my study of the Bible there is actually NOT an eternal hell for those who do not wish to be with God. If someone is interested in not being Christian for other reasons, than by all means, keep it up, however, if it is solely because of the belief that God cruelly torments the "bad" forever, I hope we can overcome that.

It's fascinating, the first lie that the devil ever told, was the lie to Eve in the garden "If you eat of this fruit, you will not surely die" (Genesis 3:4). That same lie has been embraced by the world today, believing that it is impossible for the soul to die - it simply moves to Heaven or Hell after its time on earth.

I would love to hear other people's thoughts on this issue. Wanting to gain a better understanding of life after death and how that effects people's view of God.

Seems to me that Atheists don't believe in a higher power. I do, and respect those that don't (as long as they respect that I do.) So it would follow that Atheists should not care if there is a heaven or hell or what God is like. They don't believe in God at all and so the rest is a mute point.

Those who claim to be Atheists because of the existence of Hell or a mean God, seem to be taking a very ignorant approach to understanding Christianity or any other faith (since presumably, you are not an Atheist because you hate Christianity but that you don't believe in a higher power from any religion.) Many Christians don't believe in Hell Fire and Damnation but still manage to believe in God. Many other religions don't have hell at all.

Atheists who spend their time bashing people because they believe in "fairy tales" or a God that kills people with nature are just as ugly as those from any other religion telling people that all other religions are "false."

I agree with you on many points here. I think that the biggest problem is a lack of respect from either side.

Just as many atheists would hate being told they had to worship, they should respectfully permit those that want to worship to do so. Sadly it seems that so many people have to go to an extreme - we struggle to respectfully discuss issues and learn from our differences.

I don't know of any atheist who are atheist because of the threat of hell, but it's what we are told when a Christian finds out we are atheist. Atheist are sometimes seen as the anti-christ. I personally have been called that a few times in these forums and we are seen as Satan attempting to discredit the bible. Atheist don't knock on doors an try save a soul and we generally don't like being lied too and we feel, being told believe in God or go to hell is a threat. Atheists would like real science taught in school and find it irritating when Christian try to tell us the world is 4000 - 6000 years old and want that taught in school.

So, it certainly works both ways and Christians may sometimes feel attacked by Atheists, but mostly it's the other way around.

That's a very good point. It's a bummer that more people who claim to be Christians don't act like the Christ they say that they follow. He treated everyone with love - regardless of how they treated him.

As for your science comment, I am one of those people who believe that the world may not be that old, however, I do not believe that Christianity is in place of science.

There is no proof of when the world began, it is all speculation. Therefore, I believe that it requires an element of faith either way. If a Christian claimed that they could fly, and couldn't prove it, they would be going against science. However, the Big Bang is not science. Until we can test it and make it happen again, it requires the same amount of faith as saying that the world was designed.

I believe in science. I believe in proof. But when I must make a decision between two speculations, at this point, I am more drawn to the one that explains we were made as opposed to just appearing. That is easier for me to believe.

And again, I sincerely appreciate your openness here. Thank you for sharing.

So, then, explain what made whatever it was that made us. I don't think your position makes any sense, on any penetrating level. This is surface thinking. If a creator can be eternal, then so can everything else.

Of course we could have been created by something or someone(just like man created the atomic bomb) but that could have been anything or anybody, and doesn't have to be a God.

Does everything have to be eternal if a creator is? Think about the internet. I can create a website, design it the way I want, and then take it down later.

Did I start when my website started? Do I have to end when my website ends? Not at all. Could it be that we are living 4 dimensional lives when there are many more that we currently don't experience?

And as I've said, I can't prove my view of how things started. But then, you can't prove yours either. If either of us could, no one would discuss this.

Basically, if we say that something can come from nothing, that is like saying that I can start the washing machine with nothing in it and open it up an hour later to see that a whole new wardrobe has just appeared. Very hard for be to believe.

In my mind, when I look at the complexity of the human body, it is very hard to see how it happened by chance. For one cell to receive its nutrients necessary to survive, I need a respiratory system, digestive system, circulatory system, and nervous system. If just one of those was missing, my entire body would fall apart! How can that be explained by chance?

And yes, I agree with your last paragraph. It could be some foreign life form that created us. This would then explain the complexity of life. But then, I suppose at the same time we must comprehend how those beings came to be.

Yet you are willing to believe that a silly book, written by dubious authors, with a whimsical, ridiculous and childish premise is the right view to have. PULEEEAAASE! It seems that you have no problem believing in things that are way more absurd than what you've written.

Do you know anything about the Theory of Evolution?

This is the most relevant comment you have posted.

You can't comprehend that. It is beyond the scope of your finite condition. But to default this to the writings of primitive goatherders is completely insane.

That is not very logical.Presently, the universe is infinite/eternal, ever expanding -and even increasing in speed at its outermost edge. A Creator had to fashion it -even to the most minute speck of whatever to cause it all to come into view. Therefore, even eternal needs creating, to sustain eternity. Still, eternity is a measure and it includes creation - both limited and infinite {i.e. stars form, stars explode; rain comes down, grass grows}. Creator would therefore be without and within eternity to maintain himself and his creation. There can be no complete separation. Where those connecting fibers are is perhaps the mystery. Could this be dark energy which accounts for 98% of the universe. It is fun to wonder about it, either way and certainly shows where religion must end and something else entirely begin. Unfortunately, a/theism and its maternal parent {in this case Christianity} are unable to see it this way.

And precisely what is wishful, that a/theism both will ultimately mature and dissolve; that the Great Isolation of Self will finally implode, once and for all liberating human understanding and a complete freedom from Applied Reason? It is not wishful, it is inevitable. James

Lets see... what are we left with when the Atheist and the Theists mature... and then dissolve? Agnostics perhaps, the ones that can't decide. ha ha ha. and then (that the Great Isolation of Self will finally implode) what? Wait wait... it gets better. (complete freedom from Applied Reason?) Why? don't you like Reason?

Simple critical logic. If one understands logic, and even the theory of evolution, it would make perfect sense. But, seems most prefer to "think" in typical parallels of Duality. Given the nature of a human being, even their imagination among infinite processes of light, shows a greater relevance to those processes having a superior condition; a greater thing than themselves. So, one does not require engagement of those processes to be/do. Those processes in fact allow one to supersede logic, which is Applied Reason. But, of course, an a/theist would not get that either. They are too busy thinking of the cause-effect of their Self imposed internal conflict defined as Duality, Evident by the barrage of empty/rhetorical questions you keep throwing out. As for the result, Agnostics would more than likely become absorbed into one or the other side, due to their uncertainty but necessity to belong. Agnostics are the Great Enablers. Billions of humans connected at the speed of optic light, completely obsessed with communication above all things, yet thoroughly isolated from each other. The irony is brilliant. But still, you miss the point: it is inevitable that such an evolution happen. I would even go so far as to say: the Great Isolation had to happen to even allow the Illumination to begin. Post amnesia, humanity will live infinitely, in unison with creation versus their present universal consciousness of Self and Industrialized Purpose called Quality of Life.

Hmmm......statement absorbed, reviewed, evaluated and not sure I understand.

A Greater thing than them? And, what exactly is that?

I know my purpose in this life is greater than I am as an individual. My life isn't really about me, but is about other people.

Now, I know you think a Creator exists. And, I guess Einstein would agree seeing as he said he could prove a higher power existed through physics.

I have no problem with his understanding of a higher power, but I like him don't find it in any religion on the planet. And, if I understand even the basics of physics, which I have not once taken a class on it, is based on energy.

Energy would be the highest power and the most potent power. It would depend on how energy was harnessed.

The theory as I get it is that Creator or G/god is outside of space and time, in a place where nothing could exist. Secondly, from what I am to understand about energy is it has many different effects on the body and the mind.

So, that would lead me to think that the place or stasis(if you will) one need to find is in how to personal manipulate the energy to create ever lasting life, which is something humans are presently unable to do.

This is what he did say."The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

What is beyond Applied Reason? {sorry for the rhetorical question}.Ah. Now we're getting somewhere. It is precisely reason -or rather the Indulgence of Reason- keeping that stasis at bay. And superseding reason has been debated by many a philosopher since the dawn of time. As a person who can only accept what I can apply/experience, this concept bothered me to no end. Of everything I ever read, only one guy, in all of human history claimed to attempt it, even succeed, using all three human elements of being...

I have been told many times am out of my mind or insane. Of course I laugh, because that is precisely where I want to be -out of my mind and (to play on words) in [the] sane. Out of chaos and in the stasis of understanding, of peace. I think with such a stasis comes unlimited life, experience, creativity.

I'm not saying that anything is beyond Applied Reason. Good to know. Well, don't you have to indulge in knowledge so to "apply" reason?, so as to improve upon one's "being"? Now, I'm not of the "spirituality" group and you know this.

As Jewels has said, if you want to prove a soul or spirit exists, then one only need to look at one's own psyche. I'm not sure I'm good with that, but in some odd way it would explain the "appearance" or "feeling" one generally lives with. She uses the "spiritual" word in that aspect.Superseding reason? To supersede reason, one would have to be omniscient, right? Not to mention, if the ability to manipulate energy on an individual by an individual, would that be the same as Omnipotent?Why?Okay, if you don't mind...who?James, I have people tell me that too. So, you're not alone in that aspect.Interesting.So, I take it that you haven't found it yet?I'm sure in a specific stasis, a unlimited life and experience, and creativity would be attainable. I just think it's more of an awareness issue. But, thank you.

Right.Yes.No.Interestingly, Yourself, Jewels, Cecilia, myself and a few others seen here, share a commonality, and I suppose a comradery, about this particular topic. I do not believe it is necessary to invade/indulge the processes of the mind in order to prove the spirit. Essentially, spirit is the nature/natural individual. so, proving it is kind of like looking in a mirror, in my opinion. Those processes, defined as Reason/logic are designed for their purpose, to process. Indulgence or diving into the pool of those thoughts makes a person nothing short of mad. I have coined this the Adamic Inception. A single suggestion led to a complete indulgence and the downward spiral into the infinite recesses of thought.Explain, please.I, personally and from a small measure of experience, think a measure of omniscience occurs, called Understanding or practical wisdom. If fact, just a mere fiber of a connection to an omniscient power source would be sufficient to achieve liberation.Manipulation can occur on a scalable level, certainly, where the energy is supplied without restriction, but contained within a usable scope/parameter, else it would be a waste of energy.Too long to put here. Perhaps a third book Well, you know I have no connection to religion, and this person is. Which makes it sort of a conundrum when speaking about him. But, the rabbi carpenter would be that person. good to know!found it, yes. Able to apply it thoroughly, no. Had opportunity not long ago but pulled back. Am still "battling" the realm of decision to go all-in or wait until my son is old enough to care for himself.

The "explain please"? Ever since I was a kid, I have always had this feeling/instinct. The feeling is like pure energy/power, within me. I no longer dismiss the feeling. I have come to accept feeling it.

It's not awareness, conscience, subconsciousness. Then again, it could be classified under awareness. I aware of the feeling and I do nothing about it.

Ray,I "confess", you and I seem cut of the same clothe, in that respect. At the risk of sounding Jewelish (sorry Jewel's ) I would call that energy-feeling spirit. Me, and possibly me alone, believe this is precisely the breaking away from consciousness; that thing which religion (by equation and sensation) is so desperately searching for, yet eludes them both.

Indeed. it is inevitable. An evolutionary step, long in the making. What fun!I disagree only on one point you made, regarding knowing enough. We all go through the process of thinking, which is not evolutionary -it is stationary. So knowing enough about it is simple a matter of a persons motive to apply practicality to their inherit wisdom. I think you've got it. i think it is simply a matter of letting go and experiencing it. Of course I slap myself in the face saying that, because I haven't yet done so 100% even as I coach and mentor people from all walks of living to do so.

Still don't know what your talking about. I certainly do not think we have a soul and therefore am not a dualist. It that is what you are talking about. You are here in the same forums as I and yet you mock me for being here. It's time to state what you think.

I am not mocking you, Rad Man. Truth be told, am giving you precisely what you want, same as any other. Answers. Maybe you prefer to believe you do not understand what I am talking about, but be assured, you do. Everyone does. And for the record, every atheist is a dualist to some degree. Perhaps not of the "non-physical form", often referred to as spiritual. But anyone who knows physics knows there is solidified physic, as well as, supra & sub physic that combine to form that solidification. We see this in everything, as everything is the product of light - project, absorb or reflect. To the utmost quantum, energy is sentient.

Now, to what I think...well, we would need a new thread for that.James

This seems fair and acceptable.However, the slightest perception of degradation for selfish endeavour and I shall stop responding in kind. If agreed, I will answer any question you have about my thinking. Not only yourself, but anyone interested enough to ask. To be clear, this is not about ego, but clarity of person, motivation, experience and for the sake of informative dialogue. Aka, no pissing contest. That said, please. Feel free to begin a forum thread.

I thought you were making a statement of logic, which I agreed with. I was under no illusion you thought there was a Creator. But the statement as I understood it was that if a Creator is eternal, then so can everything else be, meaning that the cause (the eternal Creator) makes an effect (an eternal creation.)

There is no need to add the unnecessary step of a Creator. That's just wishful thinking on your part. You do realize that...logically...there is no need for a creator, don't you?

BTW, just how does a Creator create an eternal creation. That statement is completely illogical. When something is eternal it does not require a creator. If it has a creator(which implies a beginning) then it is not eternal.

And you've won the lottery how many times? Because if you're really that knowledgable, you must have ESP and clairvoyance.

Had you known me, or if you could talk to people who did know me back then, you would know that I was so not Christian and frankly, the idea of a Creator didn't do anything for me. I was content not caring about it.

Now you are even misrepresenting yourself, because this is what you ACTUALLY said:

"Had you known me, or if you could talk to people who did know me back then, you would know that I was so not Christian and frankly, the idea of a Creator didn't do anything for me. I was content not caring about it."

You also said: "And believe me, it's not wishful thinking on my part to add the step of the Creator."

How can you prove that you are being honest? The statements speak for themselves.

This is merely a cop-out, and completely irrelevant in this debate.

Sure, but your point is not supported by your own words.

Yes you are guilty. Thanks for finally being honest.

Yep. Anytime people engage in such delusional nonsense, there is bound to be inconsistencies, and flip-flopping in their exchanges.

Your comment requires further explanation, Chris. Instead of making silly pointless accusations, you need to explain why my statement is not true. Could you do that, or is this your way of avoiding the fact that your inadequate debating has been defeated?

This is what happens when your perception of the real world is based upon a false, childlike fairytale. Unfortunately, you have resorted to flip-flopping, outright lying, and now even overtly evading. If what you believe is the TRUTH, there would be no need for any of these self-deceiving practices. It should, now, be apparent to you that the basis of your argument is a contradictory proposition.

Isn't it bizarre how you have created a circular argument, then complain about how the other person is saying the same thing over and over. Yes, I'm saying the same thing over and over, but that's because I'm replying to your circular nonsense.

Believers are so warped in their thinking that they are completely mindless of their circular drivel.

Don't try to put the onus upon me. You do nothing but argue in a circular fashion. I respond to your comments. And since every last one of your posts is another version of "Goddunnit" how do you expect me to answer?

I'm sorry Chris, but I now see that your understanding is on a level which suggests that you are not capable of truly debating on an in-depth intellectual level.

When you try to debate, with no penetrating thought, and no real comprehension of what is being stated, you just look incredibly confused, silly...and irrelevant.

You repeatedly create strawman fallacies, then persist in arguing the strawman. This post is a prime example of just that. You evade every straightforward question that is posed to you, and create strawman fallacies, as if that is relevant in some way to a thoughtful, intelligent debate. Then you project your ineptness onto your opponent...who is only asking relevant and fair questions. How absurd.

Has it ever occurred to you that I'm having fun with you? Seriously, you know that my wife is dying of cancer (or you should, because you've read my hubs and my posts) I have three kids.

And seriously, the less I actually say to you, the more you read into it. I have tried honest debate with you and you quoted me back to myself (as if I don't know what I wrote) and then, while claiming I've misrepresented myself, proceeded to misrepresent me!

I'm not assuming anything. I'm only commenting on what you wrote. Or did you forget what you wrote?

Sorry but this is just whimsical, childish conjecture...like someone living in their own psychotic little world. And that's not an assumption...unless of course you have real evidence to back up this ridiculous claim.

Do you not see that your delusion is forming God into the mold that it needs your God to be? And then you spout this zaniness as if it makes some kind of sense...especially to anyone that doesn't share your psychotic delusion. You don't know God, and you can't convince me that you do, with this kind of nonsense.

Which is the sum-substance of human existence, in my opinion.Why design such an outstanding creation, to commune with and fill with knowledge, imagination, ability -and even the power to wonder- and not give that creature the ability to maintain an infinite existence, precisely as it was designed.

One can always argue for the limitation, by evidence of death. But, can these same argue against the greater without evidence of life.

Just because it's easier for you to believe does't make it so. It is harder to be an Atheist and know when you die, you die. I don't like it any more then you, but I prefer reality.

As far as the big bang goes we don't really know how it started, the universe or us, but I can tell you the bible is completely wrong with the age of the universe. Proof is in the stars or the fact that you can see the stars. The hubble telescope can see star more then 15 billion light years away. That means that the light from the star left the star 15 billion years ago. The fact that the light has been traveling for 15 billion years shows that the universe is at the very least 15 billion years old. Something to think about.

I appreciate your willingness to do something, even if it is not easy. That is very respectable.

As for astronomy, you are absolutely correct. I don't see there being any problem with the stars having been around for billions of years. The Bible even starts with "The earth was void and without form". Therefore, it was already around.

Additionally, the Big Bang theory would suggest that everything expanded very quickly at the beginning. Therefore, in a matter of a couple of moments the planets and stars could have shot out billions of light years. Surely there would still be a light trail from these stars.

I believe we have both justly stated that it is a matter of opinion. We both have our evidences, we both have our views.

So I would just ask you, what if there was a God? Could it be that you don't want a God for some reason? If your views end up being wrong, how would you feel?

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning.

You will notice that according to the bible the stars were made on the third day after he made plants and animals on the second day. Does that seem right to you? All science indicates an old earth. Science has no reason to lie. Christians do have motive to lie, to protect the legitimacy of the bible.

From what I understand of the big bang, in the explosion there were no planets or stars in the beginning, only elements that eventually formed into stars with planets.

To your last question, (what if there was a God? Could it be that you don't want a God for some reason? If your views end up being wrong, how would you feel?)

If it turns out there is a God then I'd be happy. I would just hope it's not the needy, vengeful God of the bible. No it is not the case that I don't want a God, you simple don't understand. I don't believe there is a God. If my views end up being wrong I would be happy. What about you? Would you feel silly? Your question shows how little understanding you have of anyone who doesn't think as you do.

That is the most ridiculous notion ever. The precise and genetically identical location, from which thinking generates, the brain, is responsible for what you worship as critical and they worship as cyclical. Seems the truly illogical thing is the present indoctrination/belief system of logic itself, as logical with six flavours per quark. Because you know, everything needs a little flavour to make it palatable.

Besides this, Christianity, the "gullible" maternal, which brought about atheism, is the least of atheisms trouble. As the saying goes, mom's are softies. It is the paternal that ought to be watched more carefully. And that father is called science. It was he who married her and spawned the bastard children.

You asked,"Disregarding the literature, front to back, all elements within, would anyone not believe/believe in Creator, as well as the countless deities/anti-deities formed without that book?"

I answered,"Simply put, the gullible would believe and the critical thinkers would not, but without the book, less people would be Christians. By less I mean none."

Your reply,"That is the most ridiculous notion ever. The precise and genetically identical location, from which thinking generates, the brain, is responsible for what you worship as critical and they worship as cyclical. Seems the truly illogical thing is the present indoctrination/belief system of logic itself, as logical with six flavours per quark. Because you know, everything needs a little flavour to make it palatable.

Besides this, Christianity, the "gullible" maternal, which brought about atheism, is the least of atheisms trouble. As the saying goes, mom's are softies. It is the paternal that ought to be watched more carefully. And that father is called science. It was he who married her and spawned the bastard children."

I HAVE NO IDEA HOW ANY OF THAT RELATES TO ANYTHING I SAID. Are you Okay? You seem to be all over the map, from thought to thought without making any sense.

However, my statement IS critical thought, which, by your very admission in "not getting" what I said, proves just how indoctrinated atheists are to their beliefs and how deeply they still cling to mommy's apron strings {meaning Christianity}, like any spoiled, gluttonous, behemoth, brat of a thing does. Whining and pouring out crocodile tears because daddy beats them so. In the end, all atheists want is mommies love. But mommy too is abused, now isn't she. For centuries her husband encouraged, even empowered her. Now, he has taken the power from her and left her children hungry, and fatherless. Her stories is all the atheist has left. Sleepy Bedlam hollows, spooky ghost tales and melodious songs of suckling breasts and secret gardens. And the bastard children listen with the deepest intent, hanging on to every letter, as if their very life depended on it -for better or worse.

Why do you need to speak in riddles? So you think atheists are indoctrinated? By who. science (is that who you think Father is)? Why would you think I deeply cling to christianity? Atheists don't cling to Christianity or any other religion, that is the very definition of atheism. I gather from your ramblings you have no idea what atheism is. You seems a little confused about christianity and atheism. You see the christian are trying to hang onto every word from the bible no matter what science learns. Atheist simply wonder why?

James doesn't speak in riddles. Sure, just like children are through the educational systems created in this world.Father=Science and Mother=Religion. Because you are forced to unless you change your point of view. Atheism is the opposite side of the same coin as Christianity. If Christianity didn't exist, then neither would Atheism.

Riddles? Mine are not riddles. For example, a riddle is: "What is something you site on, but can't take with you?" or "What do you call a fish with two knees?". And you call yourself a writer? Without question!It is actually by whom and that whom IS predominantly the paternal, meaning science, but most undeniably still Christianity. What bastard child doesn't want to make their father proud of them, even if it means taking the violent lashings, now and again, while running for the shelter, like a mothers little helper.The definition of atheism is the "disbelief in a G/god". Read it aloud. The belief of disbelief in a God. God still plays the key factor. And it is from Christianity that atheism comes. Without the Christian doctrine/philosophy atheism would not survive a day in the real world -or even exist. So, once more, the bastard children need their mommies affection. Evidence, just here alone, proves it. countless threads begun by athiests against Christians and threads by Christians "thwarted" with "critical" logic, that is nothing less than a venting session by atheists, because they're hungry too.Again, what a ridiculous notion. Read what you wrote! "Christianity is trying to hang on to every word from the bible...Atheist wonders why". Do you see it yet or do you need another "riddle"? And, for the record, I know of doctrines -yours included- would certainly surprise even you.

But, my guess is spot on. Like that fellow from the film The Italian Job, atheists have no imagination. Explains why they need mommy to keep telling them bedtime stories.

As I once blogged, Atheists are Teenagers. Wanting freedom from the chains of guardianship; self-proclaimed know-it-all's, still living at home, eating mommies homemade apple pie, stealing from her wallet, and pissing all over themselves from a night of beer pong and stale quaaludes that someone left in the cushion thirty years ago...

Your correct with one thing James. "The definition of atheism is the "disbelief in a G/god". Read it aloud." Disbelief in G/god, not disbelief in Christianity. We also think the Jews, Hindus and the Muslims have it wrong. We think anyone who prays to a God has it wrong. If we are the rebellious teenagers you are the children still holding onto Santa and the tooth fairy. Time to start to grow up and stop clinging on to mommy.

Then why do you cling so?Why this thread?Why the constant obsession with Christianity by 99.9% of atheists? Like you have mentioned in every post.Riddle me that, Rad Man.

PS, I am quite fortunate not among the chosen called Christian or their friends. And equally, not among you chosen "saviors of humanity". Seems both sides are trying to save the other -yet everyone keeps dieing.

Gandhi, "Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ."

I do not speak up against Christianity or any other religion. I do however speak up against child abuse and equal rights brought forward by christians or any other religion.

I don't tell any religious person that are doing something wrong unless they knock at my door and they do knock on my door and threaten me with a God that will burn me in hell forever, just like the mafia wanting protection money from themselves.

Understanding critical thinking is not riddles. It takes a person disciplined enough to know what is happening in front of their faces, without the pseudo-plastic smile of conformity and underhanded payment to the gods of mediocrity/entertainment in exchange for liberal, even equality of slavery.

And, yes, courage is good -like the vicariousness of applied sciences, aka the "paternal order", in the name of progress, elitist indoctrination and proof to the salvation of all humanity! Yes, indeed, religion at its finest.

Granted, sensation would be nothing without the equation and equation useless without the excitement of the mob. If no one buys, science dies. So, what better way to live forever, to reign supreme, then create and control every sensation man can have than turn on her like a rabid dog [dyslexic god} and make her children soldiers in a war against her. Sun Tzu would be very proud.

As for hiding. I have been in plain site all my life. I have nothing to hide from. Certainly not an old, ramshackle couple, which I call the marriage of Duality. And certainly not their bastardized offspring called Quality of Life. As said many times, the temples may look different, but the altars remain the same. One of stone, the other of steel. either way, both make you pay to watch the show and drool over their walls lined with the carcasses of man and beast.

Trust me when I say, Christianities Hell would be a Holiday in Rio, compared to the "fate" that awaits religion -sensation or logician.

Yes James does speak in riddles that why he speaks about Father and Mother rather than Science and Religion and I had to decipher his code.

You think my christian schools have indoctrinated me against christianity?

Atheism is not the opposite side of the same coin as Christianity. You clearly don't understand Atheism along with James. Atheists are not in any way connected to Christianly and Christianity didn't give Atheists it's birth. How arrogant to think Christianity spawned Atheism rather then Judaism or Islam or Greek mythology for that matter. Do you really think there was a time when someone didn't stand up and say "I don't believe you"? Simply put if Christianity didn't exist there would still be Atheists, because Judaism would still exist as would Hinduism and a whole host of others. Atheists don't oppose Christianity. We simply don't believe in any God.

Ray is not indoctrinated "against" science. So you are being more than Christian now, aren't you. Defend your belief system, at any cost! ...wonders that the atheist coat of arms would look like on a shield when they launch their "Genicades". hmmmJudaism, Islam, Mythology? Wow, you -like Christians- do not even understand your own belief system & texts, do you? But you are sure good are quoting those texts, like Dawkins, etc, as if it were "gospel truth". What is the compiled version of scientific text called again?

As for saying something, have said too much.It is not my place to give you the answers, unless of course you really want them, same as any other human being. But you don't want them -most don't, because they do not like the answer. An answer they already know and understand, to the utmost power and have spend thousands of years, split oceans of blood and spent gillions of shiny metal coins to avoid it like it was the plague.

I won't go into it here, but it is stated that, when Genesis was written, people never doubted there to be a God. Therefore, it was not written in a way to prove itself. Moses wrote it. He was not there. You can google that more if you want a deeper answer.

And you know, I think I understand your side somewhat. I have struggled much in my life. I have had miserable things happen and hoped that there was not a Tod, because it would suggest he was evil. I have asked why, if there is a God, does he not help me at times when I need it.

But then I discovered two things:

1) my emotions do not determine whether or not there is a God. He either is, or isn't. And the idea of material, life, emotions, and thoughts all coming from absolutely nothing far harder for me to believe than believing that there is no God. At times believing there is no God seems more appealing, but it doesn't appear more intellectual.

2) spending more time in nature, reading the Bible, and thinking, I realized the purpose of knowing there is a God is not to make me rich, famous or handsome on earth. It is to give me the confidence that I have purpose and meaning.

Therefore, my logic has conclude that it is more likely there is a God. Science reveals it, emotion longs for it, and intellect rests on it.

Am I happy there is a Fod. Absolutely. I have realized life is better with a creator. Have I always felt that way? Not at all. There have been times that I have hoped there is no God.

1) You are correct in that your emotions do not determine whether or not there is a God, also you wanting there to be a God doesn't make it so. Before you came to this conclusion did you really think your emotions determined whether a God exists? Your idea of believing in God because you can't imagine how we got here without a God only creates more questions. Why not study how we got here independent of Religion. Study evolution and the origins of the universe without it having to relate to the bible, because as you said the bible in this regard is not perfect. If your conclusion to how we got here is God did it because I can't imagine any other way, that brings up the next question that one has to answer which is "where is God come from?". Isn't it harder to imagine someone always being alone in the dark, always, with no being and no ending. This notion flies in the face of everything we know about the universe. Everything has a being and an ending. And here you want to believe that God (a thinking intelligent being) came from nothing and has no parents and always has been here. This is the leap of faith that all Christians believers in God must take, but they don't want to study how we got here first independent of the bible.

2) I am glad you found something in Religion that gives you meaning. This does work for some, but not everyone needs to get meaning in life from a belief in God.

Your claim that logic has given you the conclusion that there is more likely a God than not, but you didn't use logic at all, you are taking a leap of faith. You will find if you use pure logic without taking that leap of faith to being with you will come to another conclusion.

If every word in the Bible is true, then hell is a place no body want to go, So many Christian are liars about hell as it's the no. 1 membership reason to join

Bible Translations about Hell

Old Testament New Testament Total

"Authorized" King James Version 31 23 54New King James Version 19 13 32New International Version 0 14 14American Standard Version 0 13 13New American Standard Bible 0 13 13Revised English Bible 0 13 13

12 times in...New Living Translation,Amplified, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, Darby, New Century Version

You are absolutely right! People miss the point and run to a church because they are afraid of death. That's not the point at all!

Firstly, the Bible does not state that people will be "alive" burning in hell forever. I mean, if you are burned to death, then you cannot be alive. Therefore, I believe that Hell is simply separation from God - which leads to death, not burning forever.

Now, think about before you were born, did you feel pain, were you miserable? Not at all, there was NOTHING! Therefore, being dead is not that bad of an option if the alternative is to live in a place you do not want to be in.

Finally, with this being said, if we look at God as a father who wants to be with his children, then his ultimate goal is not to slaughter them at all! He will let them make their own decisions, but he will not delight in making them miserable.

A relationship with the God that created you, loves you, and will take you out of this pain-filled world is why one should desire to be in church.

1) There is no God and we are all going to die, regardless of anything.

2) There is a God who loves us and provides us with the complete freedom to decide what we want to do. (Again, from my reading of the Bible and personal pondering, I do not believe in an eternal burning hell, I simply believe that we can choose to live or to die).

And it sounds like you've been surrounded by some pretty boring Christians. That's a bummer for you and them. Life's too valuable to be boring.

Where does it say in the Bible that non-believers will be oblivious before the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night.(Rev.14.10) ? If they are to have no rest, how can they be oblivious to the torment?

Sounds like you're created your own version of God - one you would personally prefer as you are not describing the Biblical one, who is not adverse to slaughtering and tormenting people. The Bible is full of examples of Gods wrath. Up to you I guess but if you're going to superimpose your own God over the Biblical one...a) why be a Christian at all? and b) why would anyone else accept as true, a version of God that you have seemingly plucked from your own imagination?

I can understand that but then you go several steps further and are prepared to believe in a particular God with defined characteristics, when no-one can know or define what God, if there is one, is really like. That's what I can't understand.

any atheist with a brain knows that heaven and hell are a myth so why would this make christianity any more appealing. i think christians just can't except that fact that a lot of atheists are good people who make a good living, have families that love them etc.this is the reason, in my eyes that christians or any other religious group doesn't want to see that atheists aren't concerned with heaven, hell, sins, after-life and other the other things that christians act like they believe in.

True, if someone believes it is a myth, then it really doesn't matter. However, I have spoken with multiple people who don't believe because they can't see how God could be loving and torture people forever. It sounds as if you are not one of these people!

If I go to bed with an empty wallet and wake up with $500 in it, which is more logical to believe, that it just appeared, or that someone put it in there.

I prefer to follow common sense. If someone proves to me there is no God, I am willing to accept that. Additionally, if someone wants to believe that there is no God, I can accept that too. I do, however, question the logic of saying that the Big Bang is more logical.

Good to know. However, very rarely do I ever provide short answers. Is this a test?Rationally speaking it must have gotten there with help from another human. To believe otherwise is irrational, ridiculous and beyond comprehension, unless you put it there and forgot which is the only other explanation which would work as well as the first I gave.We'll see.Before anyone can "prove" to you that there's no G/god, you must be able to understand a little bit of human development and history.

It's the "need" to believe vs being honest with yourself. The point being is that there's no actual need to believe in a G/god, unless the individual is unaware, dishonest and doesn't give a damn about other people.

The "proof" you require is in common sense-

(a) Life doesn't require any knowledge of any G/god to be understood.(b) Life doesn't require any knowledge of any G/god to be lived.

Thus, no G/god required.Why? Even random events have reasons for happening.

I work in an urban community and there are a lot of kids here who don't know their fathers. They can still live, but not as fully.

a) Life doesn't require any knowledge of a father to be understood.b) Life doesn't require any knowledge of a father to be lived.

However, this does not eliminate the need of a father for life to start in the first place, and I think that most people who have good fathers believe that having a father and knowing him has made life far more valuable and fulfilling.

I'm sure your not meaning to do this, but your suggesting some sort of immaculate conception. I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure, for a baby to be born, a mommy and a daddy need to come together... lol

In all seriousness, a father is definitely required for life, and a father can enhance life. Not just emotional support, but financial support and protection as well. A dad is someone who helps you up when you slip up. At least, a father should be that way.

Wake up to the 21st Century. A father figure isn't actually needed to raise a child. The only thing a man is needed for is to provide the sperm so a new life could be formed. He isn't a necessity for family.Can. But, it's not required for a full life or even an enhanced life. A MAN is required to create a child. It's not a requirement he be a father to the child created.All this says is that the woman he was with couldn't do it herself. Otherwise, not needed. Male superiority is a pathetic waste of time.Yes, but not required.

I had no mean to be sexist about it. I would be willing to incorporate a mother anywhere above where I mentioned father. In fact, I would suggest that God is more of a combined unit. The Bible even states that part of the reason of marriage is for us to better understand God. (Of course, this means that when marriages and families fail, we gain a skewed perspective of God).

Regardless, I feel that the discussion as digressed here. All-in-all, we both of the freedom to believe what we want. I am not changing my views unless proven otherwise and I believe you are doing the same. Hopefully we can grow from learning more about another's perspective.

The fact that you use an irrational thought and compare it to a rational thought and then seem to see them as the same is part and parcel the problem.I'm sure, but what you fail to realize is it's irrational to suggest a G/god exists to begin with when you yourself cannot even prove it to yourself. That's called being dishonest.I'm sure it does. Not that I care what the bible says.I'm sure you would see it that way.Yes, you have the freedom to believe whatever you want. And I have the freedom to tell you that it is completely irrational and dangerous to other people when you're not actually paying attention to your own actions. And since you're not going to pay attention to you own actions, then you're not honest with yourself.Sorry, been there-done that. I was a believer. But, haven't been for a long time now.I grow and learn from everything. Some perspectives are nothing more than pure irrationality because that individual/person is confused, conflict or just chooses to be ignorant.

Common sense would be like, over 80% of people that believe or think there is a God in degrees. Or common sense is over 80% of people who think there is some degree of Evolution older than Creationism, the rock of ages

Uncommon sense would be a religion that believes they are the only right way and truth to God or Atheist who lack the belief of God.

To me, good sense is accepting there is in degree evolution and a form of higher power or energy. Which I do not claim to own or process to know, yet do come to a closer understanding about God.

The uncommon part of me is that I think everyone is God and we are all connected to the cosmos. Go ahead call me crazy, at lease I don't have too fight over it or disrespect anyone over it or worst think most people will go to hell, or what ever they may think from their cherry picking book.

I will be the first to admit that I have a minimal understanding of God. Sadly, some Chrisitians do claim to have him all figured out and wrapped around their fire. This is sad because a God who you cannot control is far more impressive than one that you make up.

And I will not call you crazy for thinking you are a god. Most of us do - you can see it by the way we act and behave. These Christians you talk about who are treating people poorly. They believe they are god as well - they simply use "God" in place of "I".

Personally, I get very nervous when I think of myself as god. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea. I just think that I would be a stupid god and the world would be in big trouble. I wouldn't even know where to start if I was designing a cherry tree from nothing.

I will respect your belief. And trust me, you do not need to explain it. I believe the same as you often.

Too many people are motivated by fear rather than love. Most groups that are social groups like Christianity, fear God and hell. What is closer to the truth is that people are very social animals like wolves and if a lone wolf break from the pack, it dies. People do not need to be the same.

Each person must learn to lead themselves first rather following any one and only right way group because it's really 50% about you and 50% about everyone else. If you allow any group to lead your life, you will be a follower for the rest of your natural life and always fight with someone.

I read this article the other day (not sure how old it was) where they did a survey on the religious areas in different countries. In the areas where they were taught to fear hell the crime rates were high. What was more interesting however was the areas where those who believed in heaven the crime rates were even higher than the ones who feared hell.

Apparently they discovered that religion tend to conduct their teachings based on one or the other depending on where they were situated.

That's just one of the contradictions atheists use, to try to get Christians to actually think about their belief, instead of blind acceptance. It's not the reason atheists themselves don't believe. Atheists don't believe, because they've been unable to find adequate evidence of God's existence. A book written by human beings (the Bible) isn't evidence.

Even if Hell does not exist, how do you reconcile a God who told the Jews to commit genocide (he commanded them to annihilate the Canaanites so they could take over their land, and Saul to wipe out the Amalek, for instance). There are lots of examples in the Old Testament of a merciless, even vicious God.

So since the Jews were commanded to do it by God (although they didn't actually follow through,) then it's merciless and vicious, but if they had simply done it "just because" the way other cultures did, it would have been okay?

I'm assuming not, it's just so often that when people talk about the "merciless and vicious God," that's how it comes across to me.

If I were not an agnostic (or athiest, if that is understandable) I could be a Hindu, a Muslim, a Zorastrian, a Sikh, a Buddhist, a Jain, an Animist - what else?! Why does the question always have to be a choice between Christian and atheism? Can you not break out of the paradigm and realize that your Hell may be for Christians, but there are other Heavens and Hells too, to contend for the attention of atheists.

Christians and atheists have been at it for years, there really is nothing to understand. Christians are really the problem though, their the only one's truly concerned about a hell. The other religions see hell for what it is: a perception.

There are different interpretations of Hell mainly because the Bible does not present a coherent idea of Hell.

Jesus says that there will be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth in hell, and says that people should fear God more than they fear anything else because only God can throw you body AND soul into Hell. The word he uses for Hell is Gehenna, which actually refers to an area in the wilderness where folks would throw their garbage to be burned.

Later in the New Testament, in Revelations, we get Hell as the LAKE OF FIRE which is NOT referred to by the term Gehenna.

It is unclear whether either of these is meant to be an eternal torment or whether the body and soul will both be annihilated.

As an atheist taking away eternal Hell does absolutely nothing to make the Biblical God less evil or more likely to exist (since there is still no evidence for Yahweh).

The Biblical God still:

Condones slavery (Exodus 21)

Kills innocent children in Egypt

Commands genocide of entire civilizations including children (1 Samuel 15)

Thinks that working on a Saturday should be punished by death (Exodus 35)

Restricts freedom of religion with the first commandment and sets up a death penalty for anyone who tries to get others to follow another God. In fact according to God restricting freedom of religion, and murdering those who want you to convert to another religion, is so important that if your family member or best friend tries to convert you YOU must be the first into the fray when you EXECUTE THEM:

"6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."

Deuteronomy 13:6-11

The God of the Bible, and the laws that were set up therein, are evil, Hell or no Hell.

Aside from the moral argument against God there is also the total lack of evidence for his existence, so even if he was suddenly not evil it wouldn't mean a damn thing.

I can't speak for other atheists, but whether there is supposedly a hell or not makes no difference to me. The reason I don't believe in God is because I have never seen one drop of evidence for his existence. Also the logic of the bible and other religious books is so bizarre that it is incomprehensible that the universe - which is mathematical in design - would reason like that...

You are missing the point of atheism. Atheists are against religion, all religion, and particularly organized religion. Whether or not you believe in a hell would not make your religion any more appealing to an atheist. We will not choose to believe, no matter what you have to say about it.

The concept of an evil, vengeful and needy God is not why people don't believe in God, it is however one of the bible fallacies. The God of the bible is like the mafia. They knock on your door and ask for protection money from themselves. The God of the bible says praise me or I'll burn you in hell forever. Same thing, makes no sense.

It could look that way if you take an individual story. However, if you read the entire Bible, or a book like John, it reveals quite the opposite.

It shows a God who created humanity with freedom. Because of this freedom they cause pain to each other and to God. God is life and separation from him is life. Therefore, because we cause pain to others we deserve death (as a murder or thief deserves prison). However, God didn't want to leave it that way, so he came, was beaten and killed by us (because someone had to die for the pain).

He then promises to come back and end all pain and suffering.

If you look at most stories in the Bible, it is not God that causes pain, it is man. God is the one who is being treated unfairly. (From a Bible point of view).

Would christianity be more appealing to atheists, if Christians didn't rely on suppositions and exaggerated claims to defend their position?

Atheists try to find nice ways to tell christians to lay off on the craziness, only when the voice of reason fails, does an atheist lose patience. Much like stone throwing theists, atheists too conform to human tendencies and illogical behavior.

I have to say, it's your kind of disrespect that is so appalling, nonto21, no matter what you believe. Using words like craziness, voice of reason, more adept at understanding theology are just plain prejudice.

Faith is faith, it has nothing to do with reason and you can't apply the scientific method to "prove" it. There is nothing to prove! It's just as inane that atheists cite "no proof" as a reason God does not exist as it does for a radical person of faith to say you shouldn't teach the theory of evolution in school.

You do NOT have to have faith, but I do not need proof. You have no more right to call me crazy because I'm a Unitarian Universalist than I have to call you crazy because you do not believe in a higher power.

There will always be people who will insult you for being an Atheist. But that gives you no reason to insult people of faith. If you dislike people for "disssing" you because you don't believe, than stop "dissing" people who do.

I'm crazy, yet so is everyone else and we struggle ever so hard to sound as if we have a handle on things. So yes, when I said crazy, I meant it. Atheists say crazy stuff too, their not exempt from being human.

Unfortunately, when the conversation involves speculation on a cosmic scale; atheists can, and do, overstep the bounds of provable fact and devolve into passing off speculation and unsupportable claims as universal truths at times, themselves.

First, Christianity will never be appealing to Atheists because they don't believe in God.

That's the short answer.

The longer answer is that as long as Christians hold themselves above others, force their opinions on others (believers and non-believers alike), and continue to treat not only non-believers, but other believers as well as though they are less than, will Christianity will never be appealing to Atheists, Agnostics, or undecided believers. Jesus may be appealing, but those of us who follow Him often make others want to run (at great speed) away from Him.

Atheists are actually more adept at understanding theology than any theist, even the ones that went to school for it and recieved special degrees. The words christians use are crazy too. For example; Evidence and imformation, would mean that you were talking about fact. No one can prove the existence or non-existence of a higher being. So the words evidence and imformation should not be part of the vernacular. What should be said, instead of "I know", it should be "I think". There's just not enough evidence to speak of it as fact.

I was pointing out why atheists and christians are on about it, in terms that we could all relate to. The reason why. Christians are crazy, not in a bad way though. More so, in an irrational and completely uneducated sense. I'm sure atheists are unaware of anything beyond the scope of perception, then again, christians are only guessing. But, so then, is everyone else. No one person was born with all the answers, we just go on what we were told, not so much by what we experience.

nonto21, I appreciate your passion. What still gets me though, is how both sides require faith. There is zero proof that there was suddenly an explosion and everything just appeared. That's why there is a debate, because BOTH sides require faith.

I LOVE reason and logic. I prefer these things. However, when I take a look at the complexity of life, thought, and the universe in general. It makes more sense to me that it was designed by someone/something and not simply "poofed" into existence.

According to the ancient Hindus, the god's and humans mutually decided on this. We live in their world from time to time and they in our's. So it's all just a matter of geography and parental guidance.

It already has, as it is no longer practiced as widely and is not part of the worlds top three religions. At least not anymore. The way I read it; 1st it's Islam, then it's bahai, folloewd by buddhism, then christianity. It's becoming a thing of the past and most atheists used to be christian. So what does that tell you about the current state of christendom?

Truth is beauty and your happiness is more based on how graceful we handle the problem

I wouldn't want to think of the world that surrounded us is filled with ugliness and a huge mess. Then there is a threat that it will all end at the end of this year, may so, maybe not, join our fight club anyways to be safe.

In which case the lack of God and heaven is beautiful in it's own way. In fact nothing is ugly and the whole dimension of ugly/beautiful ceased to meaningfully exist. In which case my argument that making a situation seem more lovely doesn't make it more true still stands.

psycheskinner.You made me think deeper why I am here on this Religious part of the forum. Assuming that I argue or debate about the Bible fabrications and wrong translations through the centuries of little proof is a waste of time and that awareness of this, is a degree of beauty

The low degree of truth the Bible creates involves a vagueness of some truth and some are false, others parts possess truth values: For me the beauty of the Bible would not give me enough balance and happiness. Maybe my love for my Brother who is a pastor is really hopeless and should accept that fact and leave this part of the forum with so little of answers,

The Bible keeps recycled, pagan, philosophy and myths which would not match my perspective of a healthy reality or my view of a higher degree consciousness of people living today. There is really nothing in the world to compare the bible to, other than the suffering that I have personally experience from reading it, along with it's overall behavior observing it and experiencing it

Or servitude. When does one want to leave a position of servitude, only to turn around serve another, more evil master. If God were responsible for the mind of man, then God's mind has got to be damamged.

As it says in your twisted book of rules and crazy stories "We created them in our image", in another version. "Man was created in his image". If this is the case, wouldn't the mind of the creation, be much like that of the creator? There's too many variables and for me, it creates a conundrum.

"twisted book of rules and crazy stories..." Glad you're not biased...

Yes, the mind of the creation is a reflection of the Creator. A reflection is an imperfect image. So just because the creation is imperfect, does not necessarily follow that the Creator is also flawed.

The questions misses the point, and shows a lack of understanding of the definition of 'atheist.'

An atheist does not believe in any diety, religion, or religious teaching, and since the concept the concept of 'hell' is tied in with religions and their teachings of a god and an eternal reward/punishment system, the question is moot.

Removing the concept of reward and punishment would not remove the concept of a godhead, so the simple answer is "No."

Atheists tend to lean toward what is intellectualy honest. Theists tend to lean toward what others reassure them of. Science has a number of books that support similar ideas. Theists generaly have only one.

Which would you choose?

The one with numerous sources of evidence and information or the one that is only agreed upon?

If you're on a ship that's sinking and a rescue ship has arrived, you can decide to get on the rescue ship or to stay with the sinking ship.

Regrettably, too many have become attached to the sinking ship. They've become too comfortable in it and cannot conceive of leaving its familiarity. When it sinks, that is Hell.

God created "man" in His image (Genesis 1:26). And God is not Homo sapiens. If you read the Bible from this perspective, many of the confusions disappear. Homo sapiens comes in later (Genesis 2:7), during God's day of rest.

Homo sapiens, civilization, the Bible and Christianity are the rescue mission.

Those who don't want to be rescued are going down by their own decision, not by any shackles and punishment imposed upon them, except that their decision is the instrument of their own destruction.

Then you're getting a different reading of Revelation than I am. "As in the days of Noah" is a reference to the evil running rampant on the earth, not the physical reappearance of creatures not seen since that time.

Most Christian believe judgment day is near again, Don't you think you live too much for the pass and future rather than for today. Then Christian have no or very little proof of these Adam, Noah and Hell wild fantastic stories and what can all this unloving End of the world say about your God Yahweh.

It's all too low energy and sick to me, it's only laughable at best because most people will not buy into fear mongering Creationism

Of course, how people judge Christianity is based on the activities of Christians. Any thinking person can figure that out. But to really judge the merits of Christianity, one should look at what Jesus actually taught (and I mean all that He taught.)

but who gets to decide just what jesus allegedly taught? all we have are documents wriitten many decades after the fact, and of those, we dont have any actual copies dating before about 300 CE, it's not established what actually occurred.

the jesus seminar is an attempt to find a basic core of sayings and teachings of jesus, ignoring all the miracles and other supernatural myths that got attached over the years

The Jesus Seminar is the successful attempt by a bunch of left-wing glory hounds to circumvent actual scholarship and take the case to the media. They were blazingly successful.

The majority of scholars, and I'm not just talking conservative evangelicals, date fragments from earlier. What we DON'T have is a "complete Bible" from 100 AD. What we DO have are fragments and letters that date from much earlier than 300 AD.

you keep squirming and making ad hominen attacks, when YOUR statements are debunked. you said "But to really judge the merits of Christianity, one should look at what Jesus actually taught (and I mean all that He taught"

the point you're missing is that first ANY bible or gospel is just a selection from among many texts that were available at the time - what's left out can be as important as what was included [eg, leaving out any text that implies an equal role for women in the new religion, or that shows that there's no need for a priesthood to connect to god]

so, there's no way to know what 'jesus actually taught', and your snide comments on the jesus seminar are irrelevant

Ad hominem? Okay, there you have something, because there's no way to make a statement like "glory hounds" and have it neutral. You're right, it's a personal attack. But as opposed to what? Your well thought out response? Yours was also an ad hominem attack, and a straw-man attack as well.

The Jesus Seminar did talk to themselves, then instead of publishing papers and doing the usual peer review thing, went to the media (including having PBS devote four whole episodes of some show to their point of view.) They've said nothing that "debunks" anything I've said. And they've been countered by better theologians and historians than myself. So in one sense you're right. Jesus wouldn't want me to be dismissive of them because they are, after all, people in God's image the same as I am. But in another sense you're wrong. There's no squirming.

that's fine - but the point was that some of the folks posting here were TELLING US what jesus said/taught. that's the problem with fundamentalists in general - the insistence that they have al ock on truth

Corporate individuals (a la` the jesus seminar) also do not decide what Jesus did or did not say.

And small groups of people who talk mainly to themselves to decide what Jesus did or did not say are no less suspect than individuals who claim special knowledge straight from God to lead groups into insular, overly regulated colonies.

The false doctrine of hell, has done more damage to God's image than anything else. The atheists or anti-christians are not the problem here, because the bible suffers more from its exponents than it does from its opponents. Why did the faith during the days of Paul grow like a wild fire? Because they were not exposed to the false teachings of hell. They were taught to teach the ministry of reconciliation of all to God through Christ. They were taught that the living God is unconditional mercy, forgiveness and love, and there is nothing we can do to save ourselves, because God did it for us. It is not the atheists that concern me about my beliefs, it is those in the church that force me to put my armor on.

It's easy to deconvert to atheism because they are disappointed, hurt or because they have lost their faith due to God making sense. It's harder to suddenly make a rational atheists convert to Christianity, which...

Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people,...

My personal opinion is that, YES, most Christians believe in God out of fear. And that starts when they are children. When a child is taken to church and told that he/she will burn eternally in the fiery...

.......in terms of behaviours and activities?I've just read a hub by someone talking about the old Chestnut that not all who call themselves Christian are going to heaven citing Jesus "Not all who cry Lord will...